AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 21, 25 January 1901, Page 3

AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.

CRITICISED AND DEFENDED.

At the last sitting of the Aucklajid Diocesan Synod the question of the proposed removal of St. John's College to a position affording easy facilitifs to the students for attendance at the lectures delivered by the Professors and lecturers ■at the Auckland University College, came up for debate. In the course- of the discussion in the Synod the. Eev. William Beatty, of liemuera, stated, according to the newspaper report, that "the curriculum of the Auckland University Collego Avas not calculated to afford to its students sound mental training, or sound mental culture."

On reading this report Mr Gerald' Peacocke, a member of the Auckland University College Council, wrote a note to Mr Beatty, expressing surprise at the statement attributed to the, reverend gentleman, and asking him whether he had been correctly reported. Mr Peacocke suggested that if the report misrepresented what Mr Beatty had said, he should in justice) to himself and in the interests of the University College make a public correction of the expression of opinion attributed to him with regard ta the course of .study available to students of University College. ilr Beatty replied to this note as follows: — Ilemuera, October 13, 1900. Dear Mr Peacocke, —1 must plead guilty to having made the statement you quote regarding1 the course of study in University College. 01' course I was only expressing my own opinion, and quite expected that very few persons, if any> would endorse it, my views of education bcin<>' what would at the present time be generally believed to be antiquated and unpractical. The Synod was not the place for entering upon an explanation of my reasons for the conclusion to which I had come, but 1 have no objection at all to give you a brief statement of some of them. The study of Greek is not compulsory in the N.Z. University, and as a matter of fact I believe that only a very small percentage of students take it up. This is to my mind a most serious defect. T cannot po-se as an authority, but I believe that that language has been considered by those eminently capable of judging to be perhaps the most perfect human instrument for the expression of thought, owing to its .singular combination of precision, flexibility and grace. Tt is, moreover, the key to some of the grandest poetry, the noblest philosophy, the profoundest political wisdom with which the world lias been enriched. it enters in considerable extent into the composition of our own tongue. Greek worship, Greek legend, Greek mythology, Greek history have deeply influenced many of our greatest writers, from Spencer to Swinburne. To take a striking, but by no means exceptional example, the mind of Milton was saturated with classical lore. And I fail to see how a person who was a stranger to the literature of Greece could at all adequately appreciate the beauties of Lycidos, for instance. To leave the study of such a language and literature optional, and practically to discourage students from taking it up by giving equal marks for other subjects which have a much smaller formative value, and a knowledge of which is much more readily acquired, seems to me a grave mistake, if culture is one.of the great objects of a university course.

Again, I consider that it is a quite insufficient guide to a student to make only Latin and pure mathematics compulsory subject for P..A., and then leave him to choosy four others as he thinks best himself. The strong probability, I imagine, is that he will choose not those subjects which would be most valuable for his mental training, but those which were most likely to be useful to him in his future work, or those in which he thought he could get a pass with the smallest amount of labour. And lam afraid that the latter motive even often outwcighsjhc former. For instance, I have known theological students take up geology, which, though no doubt an interesting and useful study, is in some respects a very inexact science, and has no appreciable bearing on the work of a clergyman, while they entirely neglected Greek and logic and mental science, both of which are most valuable to one who has to expound the New Testament, and to deal with matters involving deep 'thought, and the strenuous exercise of reason. As regards the A.U.C. there is not, I think, any chair of logic and mental science, which I consider a, very serious want, as surely some knowledge of right and wrong modes of reasoning and of the laws of thought is highly desirable in the educated classes who, in spite of, 'or rather because of our democratic institutions, exercise such a powerful influence on the well-being1 of the nation. Moral science, so far as I can ascertain, is omitted altogether from the university curriculum. And yet the great merit of Socrates was that he recalled men from speculations about things remote from themselves to an earnest inquiry into their own being and conduct. His famous precept: "Know thyself," is disregarded in an institution which exists for the training of men, but for the pumping of knowledge into intellectual reservoirs, and a thoughtful student finds no help in the teachings of his Alma Mater in answei-ing the awful question —What am I? There are other matters to which I might refer, but I think .1 have said enough to show you that L did not make a thoughtless and random statement, particularly as I only claimed to express my own opinion, to which I do not claim that much importance should be attached. A system which has the countenance and approval of so many learned and eminent men can defy the judgment of an entirely undistinguished person. Time will tell whether I have spoken wisely or foolishly; the present fashion of. education may turn out to be the sound and therefore the permanent one; on the other hand, it may become discredited and obsolete, as so many other fashions of education have. I have written frankly in answer to your question But,' lest my position should be misunderstood. [ should like to remind you that the object of my speech was not to make an attack upon our University sys.tem, but to protest against the abandonment—or the practical abandoi> ment—of a method of education which we of the Church of England had inherited, and in which spiritual and intellectual knowledge were united, and, as I hold, harmonized, instead of being divided and set at variance, as they are in our modern

systems. Bishop Selwyn's idea of St. John's College was that it should be a home for spiritual and moral, intellectual and industrial training. I conceive that if that idea had been wisely and vigorously carried out the College I would have produced a type of man after the fashion of the great Bishop ; himself, with a faith not only earnest- • but also rational, with a deep sense of responsibility for the right, and unseltish use of their mental faculties and their knowledge, with a true respect for the labour of the hand as for that of the brain. That such men arc needed in Church and State you will not. I think, deny. And if! am sinI cerp, though in your opinion and that of the vast majority mistaken in holding that such a method of education was likely to produce such men, then I think you can understand the fervour with which I protested against a change which would make St. John's ! College a mere appendage to the University College. I can conceive nothing more likely to create radical confusion in the minds of young men than to receive what is called their "secular" education solely in one institution and what is called their "religious" education in another. Such a plan would seem to me to be equally injurious to their spiritual and to their intellectual training. At the risk of wearying you, 1 must make one other remark. Feeling1 deeply the want in our national system of education which arises from the absence of any speciiic spiritual and moral teaching, thinking it a tremendously risky experiment to put the powerful weapon of knowledge into the. hands of human beings without any attempt to secure that they will make a right and not a wrong use of it, I formerly used to blame the Government for establishing such a system. For a considerable time past T have been convinced that the fault lies not with the Government or the Legislature, but,,with the religious bodies, and in particular with the religious leaders. Great as are the evils of drunkenness, gambling and immorality, of which we hear so much, they are, to my mind, not nearly so deadly and destructive as the bigotry, the exclusiveness, the suspicion, the. jealousy, the disregard of what is vital, the over-valuing of what is trivial, which have made religion a separating instead of a binding lorce, and which hinders men professing to worship the same God, and believe the same Gospel, from agreeing upon a simple body of spiritual and moral truth such as might be taught to children in schools, and such as the great bulk of parents might gladly accept. 1 simply confine myself now to giving a weekly lesson in Scripture at Mt. Ilobson School, my curate doing the same at Newmarket. I only get a small attendance, but there are a few children who hardly ever miss. T try to teach them from the Bible their duty to God and to their neighbour, not to instruct them in any tenets peculiar to the Church of England. And in doing so I believe that T am giving real "Church teaching." Before any more adequate facilities for the moral and spiritual training of the children can be obtained, I am convinced that there must be a reformation, not in the State, but in the churches. And lam inclined to think that something sterner and more searching than words will be required to crush our self-righteousness. 1 have inflicted a very lengthy letter on you, but I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining to some extent my position with regard to the whole question of education. I am not_ a "secularist": T am not a "denominationalist"; lam a "nationalist," but I believe that a true national education which is to produce good men and good citizens must be based on that fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom. This letter has been scribbled very hastily, but it contains thoughts which have been in my mind, however imperfect the expression of them may be. If you think it desirable to do so, you are at liberty to show this to anyone interested in j education generally, find in University College in particular, or to make it public.—T am, yours very truly, WM. BTCATTY. North Shore, October 24, 1900. I Dear Mr. Beatty,-— In the first place I must thank you for the full and courteous answer you have returned to ray note of enquiry. Since I received it I have been unwell for several days, which fact, combined with my daily work, has prevented my devoting ray attention to the subject of your letter till now. My objection to the statement attributed to you, and which you accept as expressing your opinion, had nothing to do with any views of yours as to the desirability or otherwise of the proposed removal of St. John's College. Whatever my own opinion might be on that question, I should not have dreamt of challenging the { propriety of your expressing any sentiments thereon which seemed to j*ou right and just. Neither did I intend j you to think that a purely secular I mental training was my ideal of a per- ! feet education. Upon neither of these questions did I intend to imply any expression of my own opinion.

What I took exception to was the statement that the curriculum of the Auckland University College was not calculated to afford to its students sound mental training or sound mental culture. I maintain, as a mere matter of fact, that such a statement cannot reasonably be made concerning an institution which comprises in its list of fifteen " subjects in which terms may be kept," five languages, three of which are Latin, Greek and Hebrew; History, general and constitutional; Mathematics, pure and applied; the Physical and Natural Sciences; Mental Science, which includes the study of ethics and logic; Jurisprudence; Political Economy; and Music.

To argue that because a student is not compelled to pass in all of these subjects in order to obtain a degree, they cannot be regarded as within the College curriculum, seems to me unreasonable. To make them all compulsory subjects would be absurd; and which should, or should not be, in the optional list is a matter of opinion. Even assuming it is a mistake not to make Greek compulsory, the fact that it is only optional does not warrant so sweeping an indictment, against the A.U.C as an educational establishment as is involved in the assertion that it is incapable of affording a sound mental training to its students. Whether its students do or do not avail themselves to the full of the opportunities it offers for such a training is surely a matter which depends upon themselves. You riiay contend that by compulsion in certain directions they should be relieved of this responsibility, and prevented from choosing for themselves, within the prescribed limits, the course of learning they shall follow. It is, of course, a matter of individual opinion how much freedom of judgment in this respect should be

allowed-to students. But in my opinion, since human mental faculties and capacities vary infinitely in kind and degree, less harm is done by giving rather too free' a rein to individual predilections and natural bent than by too rigid a directing force. We must not mistake mere mental drill for intellectual culture, although I admit a certain amount of the former is essential to what may be called the virility of the latter. .

But, to come back from the general Ito the particular, let us take the case of your divinity student, who chooses I Geology instead of Greek as one of the ! subjects tor his degree examination. Because he thus possibly makes a mistaken choice (in view of his after lifework, as an expounder of the Scriptures), we have no logical right to conclude that a man's mental facilities cannot be soundly trained unless >h.e has studied Greek. Far be it from me to belittle the literary majesty of Greek; but when you hurl at my head the poets Spenser and Milton as the shining' products of Greek learning', I may be allowed to remind you of one Will Shakespeare, who, we are told, had "little Latin and less Greek." As to a knowledge of the Greek languarge being a requisite to a due appreciation of the beauties of " Lycidas," all I can say is that the poem was a prime favourite of mine when I was ignorant of even the Greek alphabet, so greatly did its pathos, melody, and artistic excellence impress me. Indeed, it seems to me a poor compliment to pay an English poet to say that his countrymen cannot appreciate his poetry unless they have studied Greek and Latin. One does not need to be classed amonff the learned Thebans to master the. meaning of the mere classical allusions in English literature; and such literary conceits, graceful as they are, are not, after all, the Divine essence that makes the true poet, great or small. In an academic sense, what did Burns know of the Classics?

At tlie same time I do n;ot deny that an acquaintance with the literature of Greece must be an invaluable addition to the mental furnishing of a literary genius. But, alas! it is given, to bui few of the children of men to bs geniuses of any kind; and it is saddening to think of the waste of time and effort on the part of generation.* of both teachers and taught in the, attempt to master the dead language! by those who have neither the will noi the ability to do so with any hope of intellectual profit to themselves or others. '

And yet I agree that the subjects oi Latin and mathematics should be, as they are, compulsory for our B.A» degree. Partly because Latin, being pre-eminently a logical and systematic language, the proper study of it is an excellent mental exercise, and partly because a knowledge of Latin is essen-1 tial to a thorough understanding of the structure of our own magnificent language. With regard to mathematics, I think accuracy of thought, precision of statement, and power of logical reasoning are promoted in the case of most, students by a certain amount of abstract mathematical study. I say most students advisedly, because I have known move than one instance oi a student, not generally unintelligent, to whom every problem and proposition in Euclid was and always remained absolutely meaningless. One young man, a New Zealand University stud-, ent, did brilliantly in languages* ancient and modern, and yet could not take his degree because time after time he failed to pass in mathematics. This is an example of the possible results of multiplying the number oi special obligatory subjects. At the same time we cannot make general rules to suit exceptional cases, and thq enforcement of a certain amount of educational discipline is right and justifiable in the interest of the majority. In the A.U.C. we have Latin and mathematics compulsory, while four other subjects must be taken; and two of those must not be either applied mathematics, chemistry, physics oi natural science, to obtain the B.A. degree. Therefore, it cannot be said the only restrictive guiding lines foi the student are that Latin and mathematics are insisted upon.

It is true the A.U.C. has at present no Chair of Llogic and Mental Science^ We cannot establish a multiplicity oi professorial chairs without the necessary funds, even if it were desirable to do so at the present stage of our local social development. But mental science is not ignored. Students can take it up, as they have done, and can be examined in it each year. For instance, I notice an annual examination paper in the calendar for 1398, set by the Bey. H. P. Cowx, M.A., in which, amongst others, the following questions are asked:—Contrast the ethical theories of Hobbes, Butler and J. S. Mill. Criticise (or defend) the view, that "the peculiar attribute of Rightness arises from the institution of Government or Authority." What are the the essential elements in the idea of Justice? Surely there is something of moral Science involved in the; answers to these questions, although you speak of moral science as altogether omitted from the University, curriculum.

With much of what you say as to the duty of the churches towards national education I am in hearty accord. On the other hand, I cannot agree with you in thinking- that anji serious confusion need arise in the minds of young' men because they imi bibe secular knowledge at one institution and theological learning1, at another, any more than it would disturb their mental balance to listen to the Rev. Charles Clark lecture on Dickens at the Opera House on Saturday night and then to hear the Rev. William Beatty preach one of his good sermon.-) at St. Mark's the-aext miorning.

But all this is beside the main object of my first writing- to you, which was, as I have already intimated, to protest against what appeared and still appears to me, an incorrect statement' regarding- the Auckland University College, and one likely to do public harm, coming as it did from a responsible educated person and an Anglican clergyman, whiose reputation for com j mon sense and honesty of conviction stands high in this community. I ani absolutely convinced it is altogether erroneous to affirm that students cannot obtain a sound mental training1 if they wished to do so at the Auckland University College; and I believe that on further consideration you will admit I am right in regarding such a statement, publicly made, as an indiscretion of speech. In a raw young country where material advancement is the generally absorbing pursuit, it is difficult enough already to light anil keep alive the flame of enthusiasm for a higher mental culture, without having college-bred speakers casting discredit upon the teaching of the local institution, which alone represents any, national aspirations there may bs amongst us after higher things in thi domain of human thought and knowledge.

Hoping I have not wearied you with | the length of my remarks, rendered, | necessary by the nature of your reply j to my first note, I remain, very truly i yours, GERALD L. PEACOCKE.